Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26 April 2014 passed by the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Pune, under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, which demanded deficit stamp duty by treating a Development Agreement dated 24 February 2004 as a conveyance. The petitioner argued the order was time-barred under Section 53A, as it was passed more than six years after registration, and without jurisdiction, as Section 33A empowers only the Registering Officer. The Court agreed, noting the earlier order dated 28 August 2006 had rejected an audit objection and attained finality. Additionally, the Development Agreement included a clause for future conveyance, and subsequent agreements with flat purchasers under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 involved separate stamp duty payments, preventing treatment as a conveyance. The Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
The petitioner, challenged an order dated 26 April 2014 passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, demanding deficit stamp duty on a Development Agreement executed on 24 February 2004 -- The High Court held the order was time-barred as it was passed beyond the six-year limitation period under Section 53A from the date of registration -- The Court found Respondent No. 3 lacked jurisdiction as Section 33A empowers only the Registering Officer, Respondent No. 4, to initiate proceedings -- The Development Agreement was not treated as a conveyance due to subsequent agreements with flat purchasers under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, where full stamp duty was paid -- The earlier order dated 28 August 2006 rejecting an audit objection had attained finality, barring re-initiation -- The petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the impugned order dated 26 April 2014 passed under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 was time-barred and without jurisdiction, and whether the Development Agreement should be treated as a conveyance for stamp duty purposes
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 26 April 2014, and held it was time-barred under Section 53A, without jurisdiction as Respondent No. 3 was not the Registering Officer, and the Development Agreement should not be treated as a conveyance due to subsequent agreements
